Teacher appeal termination, claims of the use of violence was …

A school district terminated a teacher contract after an incident in which the teacher used physical violence against a student. The teacher submitted the appeal to the educational officer and argued that the termination was inappropriate because the district could not check whether the teacher was immune before termination because he had applied appropriate violence during the incident.

The commissioner agreed to the teacher and decided that the district could not terminate his contract. The school district appealed this decision, first at the district court and then at the Court of Appeal. Both courts confirmed the decision and found that the district had not properly terminated the teacher.

The facts that formed the basis for the attempted termination are as follows: Shortly after the bell reached an afternoon class, the teacher went into the classroom and met a young man whom he did not know. The young man began to go to the teacher who was in the door. The teacher asked the young man to identify, but the young man refused to provide him. The teacher did not allow the not identified young man to leave the classroom. Another teacher also asked the young man for identification, but rejected this request.

The teacher looked for help by sending two other students to the office to ask for help in the classroom. The teacher also called the office and wrote an SMS to a deputy headmaster to receive help.

Before help could arrive, the young man escalated the encounter by reaching the teacher’s upper arms. The young man then pushed the teacher aggressively to leave the classroom. The other teacher came aside and offered no help.

The situation developed in a matter of seconds and culminated both in the teacher and in the young man who fell into a susceptible position on the ground. The teacher held the young man on the ground with the weight of his upper body for a control and his left hand to capture the young man’s right hand. The young man used his free hand to repeat the teacher in the face.

Other employees stood around and asked the young man to calm down, but they didn’t seem particularly alerted and did not adequately help help to prevent the young man or the teacher on the floor. The encounter ended when the headmaster arrived and the teacher stated that the young man was released.

When the district suggested to terminate the teacher’s contract after this incident, the teacher asked for a hearing. After the hearing, the independent hearing anxiety found the following:

• When the two went down and surrounded by other employees, the teacher should have withdrawn because the young man was no longer a danger.
• The behavior of the teacher did not agree with the behavior of a person of ordinary prudence under the same or similar circumstances;
• The reluctance of the young man’s teacher damaged the district, both in the time when he decided on educational purposes and in public perception; And
• The district had a good reason to end the teacher.

The independent hearing anchor never mentioned section 22.0512 of the educational code in her recommendation. As a rule, it is generally stated that a professional employee of a school area may not be subject to disciplinary proceedings for the application of physical violence against a student by the employee. If and to the extent of the actors, it is reasonably believed that the strength is necessary to force order in the learning environment or to maintain discipline in a group.

In the appeal procedure, the educational officer agreed that the independent hearing anxiety should consider whether the teacher was immune to the use of adequate violence against disciplinary proceedings (including termination).

The commissioner also decided that the teacher had applied adequate violence, and came to the conclusion that the teacher was reasonably believed that the strength was necessary because “a person who is unidentified and violent who freely grazes at school was a security risk before the administration.” For this reason, the Commissioner found that the teacher was immune to disciplinary measures and that the district could not terminate him for this behavior.

The district appealed against the decision of the representative against the district court, which decided in favor of the teacher. The district then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that the district could not simply cancel the teacher for a good reason; It must also be determined whether the change of violence by the teacher was appropriate and whether the teacher was entitled to immunity.

Here the Court of Appeal came to the conclusion that the commissioner rightly noticed that the teacher had the assumption that violence was necessary to force obedience and to keep himself and others safe from violence. The commissioner found that the withdrawal of the young man could make danger by giving him more space for maneuvering and punching. The young man was inexplicably aggressive and had opposed a simple and proper command to prove a school ID cards. The teacher did not know that the young man was a student and showed his aggressive behavior that he shouldn’t roam freely.

In view of the fact that the young man had repeatedly beaten the teacher and stood there other school workers and watched without a special alarm, it was reasonably the conclusion for the Commissioner that the teacher believed that he could not restart himself without possibly endangering himself. For the teacher, it was also reasonable to believe that the other school employees would not help him if he returned because they were simply there without trying to offer help.

The Court of Appeal confirmed the decision that the teacher could not be terminated because he was immune to disciplinary measures due to adequate violence with a student.